One of the things that was largely ignored about "Dishonored", when it was touring E3, was the fact that you didn't have to kill people. That, in fact, the developers had made a point that you didn't have to kill anybody, that gamers who were troubled by violence could simply skip even knocking people unconscious altogether.

The pacifist run has actually been possible in games for a while. Most of the Halo games make it possible (not easy, but possible). "Deus Ex", rather famously, only made fighting two characters scripted, and you could even avoid killing one of them. You can even finish "Postal 2" as a pacifist, and that's a game designed to quite literally make you pull a gun and start shooting (if you actually pull this off, the game labels you Jesus Christ).

Here's why the pacifist run is not only important for the future of gaming, but crucial, for reasons of design, challenge, and, well, ethics.

If there's one thing that's obvious from E3, it's that as AAA games advance, one of their features is going to be having multiple ways of solving a problem. Even the "Tomb Raider" reboot offers you multiple ways to deal with enemies. They'll present you with a problem, but the method of solving that problem isn't necessarily linear: you can shoot the guard, sneak up on him, use environmental hazards or traps against him, or, of course, sneak past him.

Granted, right now, most of those options are different ways of killing people. But increasingly, sneaking past your enemy is an option most games incorporate and often the best one. Even games like Hitman have put the emphasis on limiting the violence to your target, and ideally not even killing your target directly. Just ask anybody who got "Silent Assassin" on any level in "Blood Money".

Remember that Halo pacifist run I mentioned? Here's one, to give you an idea of how tough it is:

The most basic aspect of gaming is challenge: that's the entire idea. Pacifist runs are deeply challenging and offer a level of difficulty well beyond "Hard Mode". Just play the entire Montreal sequence (well, aside from the boss) as a pacifist run. Have fun with the elevator area; I recommend quicksaving. A lot.

But they can also be challenging in a different way. Sticking with "Deus Ex: Human Revolution", there's a point in the game where, unless you're quick on the draw and very, very good, your friend will die. And then, later on, you'll come across her mutilated corpse being taken apart for her various implanted technologies.

It's gut-wrenching. Many people, at this point, simply pull out a gun and start killing enemies left and right. Nobody would do this in real life: this is a fantasy world with no genuine consequences and the targets are just strings of code.

The point, though, is this: the pacifist run allows game designers to play on the gamer's emotions and choices in entirely unique and sometimes uncomfortable ways, moving games to that elusive goal of becoming capital-A Art. Which leads us to...

One of the interesting things out of this year's E3 were all the complaints about the violence shown in games. If I had to offer a guess as to why suddenly the entire industry starting wringing its hands about violence, I'd say it boils down to four words: "The Last of Us".

Naughty Dog is up to something interesting, beyond just making a survival game. Being forced to shoot a man begging for his life in the face with a shotgun, even if he is trying to kill you, makes most of us uncomfortable, and it should. That is, I suspect, the entire point of the game: that violence needs ultimately to be the last solution, not the first, even in the most extreme of circumstances.

But this also raises a lot of interesting questions: as designers include more options in a game, stealth being one, and thus give gamers choices, it changes the moral and ethical arguments we've been having for years about video games.

My position is hardly a secret: video games are fantasy, and 99.99999% of gamers are sane, normal people who understand Niko Bellic is a string of code, not a role model.

But now mindless violence doesn't have to be the norm. When I play games with stealth as an option, I'm a little surprised how often I'd rather sneak past or knock out enemies than I would pick a fight. Part of this is practical: I'm less likely to get into a firefight and thus get killed. But part of it, I tend to prefer that option.

What do you think? Does the option for a pacifist run make you more interested in a game? Or are you always going to go in guns blazing?

I am all for more options in how you go about executing an objective in a game. The idea that I can either go in guns blazing firing off a Nuke Launcher, or sneak around completely unnoticed while I hack computers and pick locks, and everything in between is fantastic. If a developer adding a Pacifist Run into their games makes the options of how to play the game more plentiful I am sold.

I’m designing a game right now where you don’t kill people. Instead you resist the temptation to kill people. You build up work ethics points (WEPs), you collect your pay check and go spend it on things you don’t need or give half away to your ex spouse who frequently shows up to cackle at your plight. WEPs get you higher up the chain, unless you run into someone who has more UEPs (Unethical Points), because then you get served and might even get a demotion. If you get enough overall WEPs -and- you’ve selected the “God Fearing” path, then at the end when you’ve maxed out your score you go to The Hall of Fame. Or at least in theory. I mean, no one has made it to the end without putting down the controller, going outside, and shooting someone for real.

I have always prefered the sneak past the guards method. In fact, games like the Single Player Call of Duty (post MW1, anyway) drive me crazy in that they actively force you to run out into the open to get the magic spot that stops the enemy closet from spawning bad guys.

I remember one of the really early Medal of Honor games on the PC where you were sneaking around in the woods in the winter and you had to snipe Nazi guards and the only way you knew where they were was by their breath. Or the part in Modern Warfare when you were lying in the field hoping that the whole Russian Army that was sweeping through the field you were lying in didn’t spot you.

That’s the experience I prefer and unfortunately it’s an experience that so many of the big FPS just totally ignore.

I think it was Teddy Roosevelt who said “Walk softy, but carry a big buster sword.” which is how I play my games when given a choice, peaceful unless there are not other better options then I will f-ing end you and all of your post apocalyptic sidekicks. It should be interesting though to see how morals will play out in scenarios as games become more advance.

I kind of wanted Heavy Rain to be what you’re describing. It was just done so poorly. One scene is a perfect example of totally ruining any kind of impact murdering someone might have: Your character is being forced to go kill a random person or he won’t get his kid back. But not soon after you get there, the random guy is chasing you around the apartment with a shotgun. Are you *not* going to shoot him at that point? Games need to get better at stuff like that.